Can we actually talk about loop-deformations, and the danger that self-optimizing systems optimize try to optimize the social environment to the configuration that allows for a maximum self-reproduction performance?
Will there be a open discussion on how only a constant economic bribe via surplus prevents civilization from sliding back into cyclic behavior?
Or will it be just findings, a cultural look up on academic behavior from the resulting emotions and then dismissal of ones own findings as something of the past to overcome by praying and wishing/ strict social controls? Even though strict social controllism may also be a strategy that evolved as part of the loop?
Who watches for bugs in the bug report mechanism? Who patches our social meta-organims against the found bugs? Who sets up laws to punnish exploits?
One needs to stop having any influences of feeling towards humanitys bugs whatsoever.
Feelings do not solve problems- at best they allow to avoid operations that crash the "cultural & biological software"- but the error persists.
Just avoiding tribalism means, that it will rear its face, whenever there is stress on the system and it will do damage then, because by nature of not-understanding it will be uncontrollable.
And why not use it for good? If tribalism is used to proof holes in the theorys of the neigbouring academia clans science - with the quasi-religious fervor of soccer fans, where is that not a positive, as long as a idea is not simply dismissed because of otherness?
Imagine if you where allowed to wear shawls with dots for non-repeatable experiments in the colors of a "enemy" university?
> Can we actually talk about loop-deformations, and the danger that self-optimizing systems optimize try to optimize the social environment to the configuration that allows for a maximum self-reproduction performance?
That's what worked for millions of years. It's been tens of thousands of years since agriculture took over and while I don't subscribe to the Paleo ideas, our bodies evolved for lifespans long enough to reproduce, and for a low ratio of (calories obtained)/(calories spend obtaining food)
This is just like the issue of monoculture in software security. If there are many societies (tribes) there are more chances for survival. There are also more chances for independent discoveries of better ways of living that would otherwise be lost to groupthink.
Tribalism is a diversified portfolio. It's not a bug, it's a feature. Our challenge is not to get rid of tribalism but rather how to get the best parts of it without the worst.
To quote Cormac McCarthy, "There's no such thing as life without bloodshed. I think the notion that the species can be improved in some way, that everyone could live in harmony, is a really dangerous idea. Those who are afflicted with this notion are the first ones to give up their souls, their freedom. Your desire that it be that way will enslave you and make your life vacuous."
Idealist ideas of the whole humanity singing kumbaya in a circule by the fireplace are naive at best.
Doesn't mean "our tribe" (which exists in a lots of levels, it could be a sports team, it could be a national identity, or something more vague) needs to be hostile to others (or shoot first)
Exchange and alliance also happened; often in aid of success in brutal conflicts.
does the depth of cultural self-loathing know no bound?
I'm puzzled by this (possibly rhetorical?) question. Which culture is supposed to be loathing itself here?
It isn't really rejecting tribalism, it's something more akin to the 'FairBot' tribe from the article. It is a way of selecting members based on adherence to a very complex set of tendencies and behaviours; in other words, a Shibboleth. It's been more successful in the recent term because it has succeeded in identifying tribe members independent of ethnic origin.
It absolutely does not shy away from rejecting people who fail at performing the Shibboleth and it doesn't care if those people are the direct descendents of tribe members. Exhibit A: the number of people in prison in the West.
I was going to say this exact same thing --- that, as far as the simulation understands, FairBot is just a more complicated Shibboleth.
To properly perform our Shibboleth is to have loved other people, then develop and understanding of murder/genocide and be given an opportunity to express your feeling about it. If these things don't bother you, then you've failed the Shibboleth and need to be killed (or imprisoned) so that you don't damage our society.
And, while our society certainly doesn't implement this perfectly, this is the best you can do. The shibboleth has worked so well because, unless you're a sociopath, it comes out of the root of your being. In my mind, the experience of transcendent love is so powerful that we are willing to reject ANY destruction of it, even if it doesn't directly affect us (i.e. I wouldn't kill a mother because, having a mother myself, I know it would destroy a very power human bond).
(just because I didn't know that word) Mores: "The accepted traditional customs and usages of a particular social group."
> is rejecting tribalism in favor of the rule of law
Agreed. You just have to convince the other "tribes" to do that as well. And the more people are forced to accept other people from a more distant (not geographical distance) culture, the stronger the backlash is
> more egalitarian social relations and decisionmaking processes
How many forced marriages, FGMs and honour killings are happening now under the auspice of western secular governments/societies?
I’m not sure I understand your question. Are you talking about autocratic regimes propped up by western powers for short-sighted self-serving geopolitical reasons? Which western/secular governments and which honor killings are you talking about?
Agreed. When they have the chance
> Are you talking about autocratic regimes propped up by western powers for short-sighted self-serving geopolitical reasons?
While propped up regimes are often undemocratic, the anti-secularism (which is different from simply "religious aligned" - like most republicans, as an example) and other factors do not come from it.
Though I agree auspice is a bad word to describe it, as governments are indifferent rather than supportive
If we want to stop female genital mutilation in Eritrea, Ethiopia, and Somalia (where the women under discussion are migrating from), it seems to me – though I am certainly not an expert on the region – that the way forward is to stop flooding them with small arms, work on improving the local economy and its connections to the outside world, work on improving the political and economic power of local women, not turn a blind eye to ethnic violence, stop uncritically supporting the awful Saudi monarchy, work to empower respected people in the region to speak out against such practices, put pressure on local governments and courts to change their laws and enforcement, and so on.
Trying to impose cultural changes on people by external force is historically not a productive method.
Correct, but tolerating cultural practices incompatible with modern societies is causing local populations to feel frustrated (not to mention the imposition of guilt onto them).
Criticizing one practice does not mean other practices are acceptable. So yes, domestic violence is a cause of concern. But nice whataboutism.
EDIT: the current framework of international order has roots in Westphalian notions of nation states, which is indeed christian and european.
My take was that the article does not quite make these claims, but uses the simulations to model implications of them.
>we should despise tribalism for some reason that is frankly not exactly clear
We should move beyond tribalism because of it's inherence of prejudice.
>We should move beyond tribalism because of it's inherence of prejudice.
Considering an inherent property of a winning strategy evil means your code is non-optimal and is inevitably going to disappear.
Anyone who thinks tribalism can be eliminated lacks self awareness or a least a mirror.
Regarding your second point, it's not a matter of the level of tribalism staying the same vs completely eliminating it. I think the overall levels have been reduced over the centuries, and there are people out there that are pretty non-tribalistic in outlook.
Not sure about the explanation in the article "This domination would last until enough errors accumulated in the code handed down between generations for dominant machines to stop recognizing each other.", shouldn't be the agents that stop recognizing the code forced out? I guess it depends on implementation details, if every agent can fight several opponents before being or not reproduced.
Cancer is largely understood as a failure of cell death mechanism--a negative mutation within the organism. Whereas the flu virus is rationally seen as part of the environment. It's effect in the body can be disastrous, but it also exercises our immune system.
I think the conclusion is a grab bag of metaphors, and a poor conclusion to an interesting discussion of model and simulation.
There was a similar work by Axelrode, it goes back to the 80s - but it also has some results that stunningly resonate with human moral strategies. And here is some Python code: https://github.com/Axelrod-Python/Axelrod